Well, it's not that equivalent a situation. I'd feel personally responsible for the particular set of individuals killed by the genie rather than some other set of individuals. That's too much responsibility for me, I didn't ask for this crap, I should know better than to trust random genie bargains.
I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions and the complexity of the world is not an excuse. Regardles, this question doesn't seem to fall in a grey area; they are obviously criminals who harm others; the company that paid them was not trying to fend off starvation, but simply wanted to test some software.
Why? So long as there are proper repercussions against the person who did the deed, if that person wasn't a part of Disney, what could Disney have reasonably done? If there turns out to be nothing it could reasonably have done, then whence comes responsibility?
I could imagine a lot of things. I'm just trying to point out that you can't just absolve individuals from being responsible for the outcomes of their decisions. And that's not the same thing as saying "The victim was dumb, they got what they had coming to them".
He wouldn't be a victim in that case. If he had killed someone else in addition to himself, I'm sure you would be more keen on holding him responsible.
This is like saying J.D. Salinger should have taken responsibility for John Lennon's death. Any looney toon on the block can reinterpret someone else's words to validate their insane desire to shoot up a Dairy Queen because they got the toppings wrong on their ice cream.
Nah, if you effect other people's property, you are morally responsible for the foreseeable outcomes. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility because you've decided that their preparedness didn't meet your expectations.
Absolutely not. Every person involved made a choice, of their own free will. You do not get to absolve the ones you like of responsibility and instead put it all on those who you do not.
Right, but you're trying to justify your actions by bringing up the actions of the mentally deranged, as if that somehow absolves you of responsibility.
That’s like asking if it’s really a murderer’s fault for pulling the trigger of a gun manufactured by someone else. Yes, it absolutely is their fault and no, “if they didn’t, someone else would” is not a valid moral excuse, ever.
This is completely backwards way of thinking about the world, and you should really take a moment and think about it.
Consider this: Somewhere in the world, someone is going to eat poison on camera to get some ad money on YouTube. Would you say "Well it was going to happen anyway, so I might as well pay them to tattoo my brandname on their forehead while they're at it"?
No, you'd probably say "Wow, that sounds like a risky thing to do, and maybe it would look really bad for my brand, especially if they actually did die". So you should take a moment and ask "Why am I blaming the sherpa for the death, but absolving the rich people who paid him to do it?". There is a world view where you can think that maybe people shouldn't pay people to do risky things for stupid reasons.
But what good is responsibility? The point is this shouldn't happen in the first place. There's no way someone can make up for something bad they did in the past. Assigning blame after the fact seems hollow to me.
It's a tradeoff. "If men were angels no government would be necessary." Personal responsibility might be an ideal but it can't be an absolute. Trading lives for a "glass of whiskey" is morally bankrupt.
reply